Skip to main content
Glama

Federal Register

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Scan Competitor AI Presence

scan_competitor_ai_presence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. Probes each entity (your brand + N competitors) with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized. Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: "does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?". Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key — only if "anthropic" is in models. Passed to api.anthropic.com per probe.
contextNoOptional shared context applied to every probe (e.g. "B2B SaaS", "Boston restaurant"). Disambiguates common names.
entitiesYesArray of 2-8 entities to compare (brand/business/product names). First entry treated as the "subject" for narrative; rest are competitors.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds significant context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a structured list with specific fields. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mechanism, use case + output. Front-loaded and no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 4 params (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and explains the link to ai_visibility_check. Lacks explicit mention of models parameter behavior or API key caveats, but those are in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying the order of entities (first is 'subject' for narrative) and emphasizing the role of context. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Compare'), resource ('AI visibility'), and scope ('across multiple entities side-by-side'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (possibly generic) by detailing the competitive audit use case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example question. Implies when to use (comparative audits) and not (single entity check, which is handled by ai_visibility_check). However, it lacks explicit exclusion criteria or limits (e.g., entity count bounds).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Federal Register toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlaps heavily with them. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover similar company/factual research territory, creating frequent selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: descriptive lowercase phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, valid claim) coexist with verb_noun (search_documents, recent_rules) and inconsistent underscores (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, resolve_entity). There is no single recognizable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Federal Register' but only 3 of 34 tools (search_documents, recent_rules, get_document) relate to that domain. The other 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx data and prediction-market suite, making the count extreme and inappropriate for the declared purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Federal Register domain, the surface is minimal: search, recent listing, and single-document retrieval, with no docket browsing, full-text search within documents, or agency-specific navigation. The broader Pipeworx capability set is comprehensive but irrelevant to the server's name, leaving obvious gaps for the actual purpose.

Resources